Feminist or FemiNazi? Truth and Myth

page: 21
3
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 12:24 AM
link   
I haven't read all the posts in this thread as of yet. Let me weave one more thread into the web. The femenist movement has become known as hostile towards men because of femenists like Peggy Drexler and her new book "Raising Boys Without Men - The New Feminist Fantasy".

www.businessreform.com...
This is actually a very long article, and I will do my best to bring out some of the main points while keeping the quotes to a minimum.

These women are definitly extreme feminists, and this book is trying very much to gather even more converts. The women in this book are choosing to be single and raise children through "donor insemination" to get pregnant often not knowing the name of the father. They don't even want men around. If the children ask later on, they are taught about the male doners and term "seed daddy" to refer to their fathers. If the boy even indicates or says they wish they had a dad, the author does almost everything in her power to brush aside any concerns, and the fact the boy even wants a dad in the first place.



So, how does Drexler explain the fact that boys without fathers want a dad? "It's only natural to long for what you don't have," she claims.


The entire article is putting Single mothers and lebsian couples on petastools, and superior to all the other women raising children. The fact that single mother hood or two women raising on or more children is acutally the perferable way to raise children. Yes, the woman in a hetrosexual marriage raising children are still being looked down upon. I am sure women in these marriages who decide to stay at home would seriously be looked down upon and chastised for doing so.



In essence, Drexler argues that moms--singly or in lesbian pairs--are actually superior to heterosexual couples in raising boys.


These type of femenists do have a major agenda to reduce the male role as much as possible in society. They can do every thing men can do, they don't need men to have babies, and they surely don't need men to be daddies. The less men they have in thier lives the better. Oh, it is ok for these boys to have "male role models" as long as they don't pick up the male agrevnesses men tend to protray. Heaven forbid if the the boys show any natural characteristics of being agressive, or as other women would say boys will be boys.




Raising Boys Without Men is a sign of things to come. The utopian fantasy presented within this book is the ultimate fulfillment of the feminist dream--the evolution of a society that transcends manhood and the need for fathers. The women Peggy Drexler celebrates in this book need and want nothing more than the use of gametes from "seed daddies" who have no further role in the lives of their sons.

Of course, the feminists would never allow this equation to be reversed, even in hypothetical form. A book arguing that young girls do not need mothers and that girls raised by homosexual men are likely to be healthier than those raised by moms because they can select their own female role models and pioneer a new paradigm of femininity would be roundly condemned and probably never published.

Raising Boys Without Men is a clear indicator of the lengths to which the feminist movement is willing to push its radical vision. The ultimate realization of this vision really comes down to the last two words of this book's title--without men.


I honestly think they would love a society where they don't need men. The feminist movement really has progressed beyond being equals with men to being superior to men. Many women still have the old idologies of what the femenist movement was meant to be, but unfortunatly it is changing with many young women picking up the new idologies of what the feminist movement should be.

With books like Peggy Drexler is writing, this extreme form of feminist movement is going to continue to grow. How many more women are writing books like this to make this the mainstream of the feminist movement?

I honestly hope that most are moderate feminists, and don't become radical. They keep equality with men as the main focus, and not superior to men or the elimination of men.




posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 09:52 AM
link   
Hi Mystery_Lady and thanks for your response.


As has been pointed out in this thread, there is quite a range of feminist ideoligies from fairly conservative to quite extreme. Peggy Drexler seems to be one of the more extreme. I would guess that the number of feminists who follow her way of thinking is fairly small.

EDIT: I have researched Ms.Drexler further and my findings (somewhat contrary to my opinions expressed in this post) are in my next post.

Secondly, I have no problem with how people choose to raise their children. If these women wish to raise their kids without the strong influence of an aggressive role model, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. Now, it seems that they are choosing non-aggressive males to provide male role models for their boys, which I also support.

In fact, I totally support women or men, gay or lesbian couples raising their kids and choosing the influences they wish. If a gay male couple wished to raise their daughters, for example, without the influence of certain women who hold ideals they don't honor and respect, I really think it's up to them. In this day and age, I wholeheartedly support people caring so much about the influence adult role models have on their children.

After all, when we marry, if we plan on having children, one of the considerations we make when choosing a man is what kind of father he'll be. Therefore - what kind of role model will he be providing for our children? I don't see a problem with choosing those role models.

I don't really think I'm too concerned about the number of Drexler 'converts'. Women are getting stronger and more comfortable with making their own decisions, not the opposite, so I have little fear that these Drexler followers will be taking over the world.


Originally posted by Mystery_Lady
They can do every thing men can do, they don't need men to have babies, and they surely don't need men to be daddies.


While I agree they don't need men to be daddies, I'm amused by the idea that some women think they don't need men to have babies. Unless they're cloning, then they most certainly need a man. Where do they think that little swimmer came from?


Originally posted by Mystery_Lady
Oh, it is ok for these boys to have "male role models" as long as they don't pick up the male agrevnesses men tend to protray. Heaven forbid if the the boys show any natural characteristics of being agressive, or as other women would say boys will be boys.


I am all for choosing appropriate role models, as I said earlier, but I'm not sure it would work on a practical level as regards aggression. For one thing, I believe that boys do have some innate aggression as the male of the species. I believe that finding creative and non-violent outlets for this natural aggression would be a much smarter way to deal with that than trying to 'breed it out' of the boys in one generation. I fear that this may backfire. Boys may very well have a need to express their aggression and given no forum, could express it destructively.

I do believe that 'boys will be boys', but I don't support using that as an excuse for violence or inappropriate aggression.



The feminist movement really has progressed beyond being equals with men to being superior to men. Many women still have the old idologies of what the femenist movement was meant to be, but unfortunatly it is changing with many young women picking up the new idologies of what the feminist movement should be.


I see no indication of this being a progression. Sure, there are factions that think women are superior to men, but they are the vast minority. Especially when compared to the number of people, male and female who think men are superior.

I also disagree that this is the 'new ideology'. This is (in my opinion) trailing fragments of the old ideology of feminism (Women need a man like a fish needs a bicycle) and I believe it is fading. The more we get away from whether or not a woman needs a man, the more we can explore whether or not a woman wants a man. And what we're finding is that some do and some don't. And that's ok. Some men want a woman and some don't.



I honestly hope that most are moderate feminists, and don't become radical. They keep equality with men as the main focus, and not superior to men or the elimination of men.


I'd just like to say that legal and social equality with men is very important, but in my mind, the goal is for women to come into their own, without regard to men. I think it's important that women (to borrow a phrase) be all they can be. We already ARE equal to men, we just don't always get treated that way. So besides being treated equally under the law and socially, the goal is to define what 'woman' is without comparison to man (thus making "equal" and "superior" moot points) and to be fulfilled to our potential.

[edit on 5-6-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Drexler recieved her Phd at Stanford. Red Flags Up!!!!.....She might as well have studied at Langley....same thing!



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by YIAWETA
Drexler recieved her Phd at Stanford. Red Flags Up!!!!.....She might as well have studied at Langley....same thing!


I have no idea what you mean by this. Perhaps you could elaborate?


I have done some research now on Ms. Drexler and Mystery_Lady, your source seems to take some extreme liberties in making assumptions about what Ms. Drexler's book is really about. I find in reality, she's not all that 'extreme' at all. She's not out to 'rid the family of the father', her studies indicate simply that the boys everyone is so concerned about; the ones in our society being raised by single women and lesbian couples, are actually quite healthy, socially and emotionally.

I would advise reading about her and her book from a less biased perspective if you're interested in what her book really has to say.

She's not saying that raising boys without fathers is preferable, she's saying it's possible and that these boys raised by women are healthy, emotionally, socially and physically. In other words, children don't NEED to have 2 parents of opposite sex as is commonly believed in order to be healthy. Which is something I've believed forever. Many healthy people come from single parent homes.

Drexler is challenging the idea that "a boy needs a father" to be socially and emotionally healthy and I agree with her. Neither does he need a mother. A man can raise a child as well as a woman can.

Peggy Drexler, Ph.D



Peggy and her husband have been married for over 30 years and together they have a son and a daughter.
...
Dr. Drexler's research shows that boys raised without fathers are socially savvy, generous, caring communicators, while still remaining extremely “boyish” -- passionate about sports and adept at rough-housing with friends.

These boys’ maverick moms are pioneering a new form of parenting that rejects social judgments about family structure and gender stereotype, and which stresses the importance of communication, community, and love. These brave women have much to teach us about a better way to raise tomorrow's men


From the Book



Parenting, moreover, is not anchored to gender. Parenting is either good or deficient, not male or female. A good female parent will change diapers and coach soccer. A good female parent will help a boy to develop his full potential as long as she values his manliness and encourages his growth, independence, and sense of adventure.


I encourage you all to read the excerpt from the actual book available at the above link to get a more accurate picture of what it says. The opinion piece by Albert Mohler linked by Mystery_Lady is really kind of way off the mark.


[edit on 5-6-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps

Originally posted by Diseria
A little late, but I'll explain why I didn't know the name Rommel.
Simply put -- in all my years of history classes, I (*honestly*) never knew that WWII involved anything beyond Europe and Russia. Rommel was never brought up. So, yes, it was required for graduation... but we never learned the full story, I guess.

Welcome Diseria. Did WyrdeOne's comments prompt you to join this thread? If so, glad to have you. If it helps any, the Germans I know personally, are way smarter than me.



Actually, reading over his shoulder prompted me to join.
That and a semester talking about culture and body in college... (I made a comment that's long lost on this thread, before explaining my lack of knowledge on the whole Rommel thing.)

*laughs* I don't know if they're any smarter.. I've family in Germany, and they don't seem any smarter, just differently focused. Their whole school system is set up different -- you have to have the grades to get into a university, not just a pencil and a check. And if you don't have the grades, then you go to a trade school.

In that respect, I envy them. Would definetely take those positively evil (dumbfounded) silences out of the classroom...



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Drexler is challenging the idea that "a boy needs a father" to be socially and emotionally healthy and I agree with her. Neither does he need a mother. A man can raise a child as well as a woman can.


Very true, BH. Yet, in this day and age there is still a double standard. In a divorce, the participants are usually thinking only of themselves. When a man gives up custody of his children to their mother, he is commended for placing the children's welfare first. When a woman gives over custody to the father for the same reason, she is branded a bad mother.

Judges will give over custody to the mother automatically instead of determining who can provide the best parenting. It is time to stop the stereotyping.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 11:59 AM
link   
darkelf, That touches on an important point that needs to be remembered. There are women who would rather maintain the status quo for the benefits and protections that women receive in a patriarchy. These women, although sharing a gender with feminists, move counter to the feminist movement and are therefore sexist against women.

Men aren't the only creatures who can be sexist against women.

Do people agree or disagree with this statement?



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
darkelf, That touches on an important point that needs to be remembered. There are women who would rather maintain the status quo for the benefits and protections that women receive in a patriarchy. These women, although sharing a gender with feminists, move counter to the feminist movement and are therefore sexist against women.

Men aren't the only creatures who can be sexist against women.

Do people agree or disagree with this statement?



Ann Coulter hates women, esp ones with more money than her

edit: has coulter always been female or was she really a man before?

[edit on 8-6-2006 by laiguana]



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 12:48 PM
link   
I dont Benevolent.

Because theyre not being sexist, they just see nothing wrong.

Its all a matter of paradigms, like everything in life. They see it that they do have equal rights, feminists see that you have not achieved it yet. You cant label a woman sexist because she doesnt agree with you. Thats ridiculous



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by WolfofWar
You cant label a woman sexist because she doesnt agree with you.


Well, I didn't label her sexist because she disagrees with me.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by laiguana
Ann Coulter hates women, esp ones with more money than her


She is an example of what I was talking about. She doesn't think women should be 'allowed' to vote.
And I don't know if she's transgendered or not. It would explain a lot about her attitude against women.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Well, I didn't label her sexist because she disagrees with me.



"These women, although sharing a gender with feminists, move counter to the feminist movement and are therefore sexist against women."


You may not label them sexist because they disagree with you, but you label them sexist because they disagree with the feminist movement.

I see no difference really, just grammatical symantics.

Because they dont agree with your groups point of view does not make them brainwashed, sexist, or ignorant. They see things differently, just as theres all the many different views in feminism. You should respect that, not ignorantly label it sexist.

Just drawing lines in the sand, more polarities which I talked about earlier. Its an "us vs. Them."

Men and sexist women vs the true real women, right?



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
They do use different standards, yes. I should point out that this also allows smaller men of other cultures (Japanese, for instance) on the force.

Does this mean it's wrong? Hardly.

In the case of people of Japanese origin in the US, the only "allowance" that has been granted is in the case of height. They still have to meet all other fitness requirements meant for people from other backgrounds. It would seem that after the US Army saw the Japanese Imperial Army in action they decided that men with the Japanese stature were also "capable" of being able soldiers comparable to their White and Black counterparts.

For women this isn’t the case, there is a systematic and complete divergence from the accepted standards across the board. They have lower physical requirements in all departments and are also provided with additional leeway to compensate for their physiological conditions. Such provisions are not allowed from men, irrespective of their background.
I am not in support of men dictating the 'laws of life' to women but only want to point out the error in making comparisons between allowances for women and those for a man of Japanese origin.


There are many times when a police officer who is a woman can negotiate a situation (and a male officer would cause fear or aggression.) There are many times when a suspect or a victim will relate better to an officer of one gender rather than the other.

While this is true, I can also point out that many a time a lady officer have been put in greater danger than her male counterparts simply for her gender and in some cases have been unable to contain situations that would require a more "direct" approach. But this is not to say that women have not made a difference to policing and promoting greater female "liberty" and presenting a more friendly face to the community.
Women officers arrest the gender gap


Women have better hearing and better reaction times than men do (which compensates for their lack of strength.).....Because of their better reaction times, they're 2.5% less likely to die in traffic accidents than men and are safer drivers.

I think you are way off the mark here.
I refer to your assertion about women having greater reaction time when compared to men. The statistic that you display about there being fewer number of accidents by female drivers has been mis-interpreted to say that women are safer drivers because the statistic is does not take into account that there are greater number of male drivers on a whole on the streets. It also doesnt take into account the state of the driver behind the wheel, ie DUI or not. So to make any comparison on only the number of accidents and the drivers gender is fallacious.
From a scientific study on reaction times:

A Literature Review
on Reaction Time

Gender: At the risk of being politically incorrect, in almost every age group, males have faster reaction times than females, and female disadvantage is not reduced by practice (Noble et al., 1964; Welford, 1980; Adam et al., 1999; Dane and Erzurumlugoglu, 2003). Bellis (1933) reported that mean time to press a key in response to a light was 220 msec for males and 260 msec for females; for sound the difference was 190 msec (males) to 200 msec (females). In comparison, Engel (1972) reported a reaction time to sound of 227 msec (male) to 242 msec (female). Botwinick and Thompson (1966) found that almost all of the male-female difference was accounted for by the lag between the presentation of the stimulus and the beginning of muscle contraction. Muscle contraction times were the same for males and females. In a surprising finding, Szinnai et al. (2005) found that gradual dehydration (loss of 2.6% of body weight over a 7-day period) caused females to have lengthened choice reaction time, but males to have shortened choice reaction times. Adam et al. (1999) reported that males use a more complex strategy than females. Barral and Debu (2004) found that while men were faster than women at aiming at a target, the women were more accurate. Jevas and Yan (2001) reported that age-related deterioration in reaction time was the same in men and women.

Now one could claim this to be sexist but I think these facts need to be al teast considered.
I find amusing the way the author(who is a man) is almost apologetic of the results of scientific study, while I doubt he would be the same had it been that men were found to be behind; a result of feminism perhaps ?



We were once all equals in a tribal system and both men and women acted as protectors and invokes of justice; as people who ensured the safety of other members of their tribe. I see every reason to go back to this equality

I am curious to know of this tribal system, which particular tribe do you talk about and what was its take on gender ? I find it hard to believe that there were tribes where men and women did exactly the same roles with the inherent physical dis-similarities.
To my knowledge it has always been either a matriarchal or patriarchal system, where one sex has some greater status than the other, in the tribal system. I would like to know of a tribe that has really prospered through an utter sense of equality.

Even in nature, if we take the Lion; it is the female that is stronger, faster and more potent than the male. But ironically it is the female that does both the hunting and the rearing while the male still gets first preference, even though the female could in fact take out the male. The males role centers around protecting his pride and nothing else. If power was the sole limiter to dictating the norm then I find this curious.

Once again, I dont support men dictating the norm to women. I stand for greater liberty for all.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by WolfofWar
You may not label them sexist because they disagree with you, but you label them sexist because they disagree with the feminist movement.


Taking just the sentence you quoted, I understand it seems that I'm calling them sexist because they disagree with me and the feminist movement. Point taken.


But I don't think it's really that simple. The first sentence in my post gives the reason. I call them sexest because they support the patriarchy that has historically proven to oppress WOMEN. To me (and Mirriam Webster, at least), that is sexist. The fact that she doesn't mind living within limitations and protections doesn't mean that all women should have to.

So we might be disagreeing on the meaning of the word, 'sexist'. Just to be clear:



sexism
2 : behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

M.W.


I don't insist that you also think 'they' are sexist. And I'm not really into labeling a certain group of people. I was pointing out that there are women who choose alimony, custody arangements, no draft, taking him to the cleaners in divorce settlements, etc for themselves. And that's fine, but by supporting the status quo and living under these 'limitations' and 'benefits', they are supporting a stereotypical mindset which is sexism.

But I think I said it a lot nicer the first time.


And I didn't say anything about brainwashed or ignorant. I wasn't making a moral judgement. I don't dislike these women or anything, I just think they don't support true equality of the sexes. (Hence the 'sexist' comment).



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Men aren't the only creatures who can be sexist against women.

Do people agree or disagree with this statement?


I agree.

WolfOfWar, it may appear to be symantec games, but by definition of the term 'sexist', somebody who supports legal restrictions based on sex (Merriam-Webster: sexism) is a sexist, without regard to much else. BH made no claims about brainwashing or ignorance. Nor did she say being sexist = being evil. Being sexist merely = being sexist.

Women that prefer the status quo are no more evil than those that want to change it. And feminism philosophy does not say women that want to live according to that status quo should not be allowed to do so.

There's timing...
. BH hadn't posted when I started this...

IAF101 - Very interesting thoughts, and they raise some good questions. I hadn't been aware of the lowered standards in the military or fire or police professions. And I'm not sure I agree with that approach. Raw physical strength is something that generic men have more of then generic women do. If a job requires a given level of physical strength, and those standards are set due to the job, not as an underhanded means of keeping women out, it seems to me that lowering those standards would do a diservice to everybody involved.




[edit on 8-6-2006 by Open_Minded Skeptic]



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 01:53 PM
link   
This article is a good demonstration of what the feminist movement faces.

I have no idea of the credibility of the site, and I make no claims thereof.

But I've seen this kind of stuff before... how 'feminism' is responsible for the miserable way women - young women in this case - are treated in the culture, even today, after some progress.

The author, a Dr. Makow (Piled Higher and Deeper, not Medical Doctor) starts right in:


Thanks to Feminism, co-eds today do not endure the daily humiliation of courtship. They don't worry about young men offering flowers or asking them out for dinner or a movie.

The days of dating when young men sought them as friends, and possibly future wives and mothers are gone.

Today, thanks to the humanizing influence of Feminism, young women immediately give their bodies to complete strangers after anaesthetizing themselves with alcohol. They engage in degrading sex acts without dread of repressive "patriarchal" morality.


Now, I don't have any fancy letters for my name, but this is on its face nonsense. Basically, the article outlines all the crappy, disrespectful ways women are treated in college. And it is ALL the fault of 'feminism' according to this guy. Not a single word that I saw about the 'conquest' mentality of frat boys, not a word about the deliberate use of alcohol and other drugs for nothing other than 'scoring'. And a blanket generalization that apparently nobody in college these days is a true, honorable gentleman.

This kind of twisting of the truth by the anti-feminist crowd is insidious. Sure, in the days when women were more oppressed than they are now, the kind of behavior described in the article did not happen as much. Or as publicly. And one aspect of full freedom is the freedom to make really stupid decisions, as no doubt happens.

But to blame rampant sexism, poor choices, mis-use of alcohol and all the rest soley on feminism is so ludicrous it would be funny were it not so tragic.



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
This article is a good demonstration of what the feminist movement faces.

I have no idea of the credibility of the site, and I make no claims thereof.

But I've seen this kind of stuff before... how 'feminism' is responsible for the miserable way women - young women in this case - are treated in the culture, even today, after some progress.

The author, a Dr. Makow (Piled Higher and Deeper, not Medical Doctor) starts right in:


Thanks to Feminism, co-eds today do not endure the daily humiliation of courtship. They don't worry about young men offering flowers or asking them out for dinner or a movie.

The days of dating when young men sought them as friends, and possibly future wives and mothers are gone.

Today, thanks to the humanizing influence of Feminism, young women immediately give their bodies to complete strangers after anaesthetizing themselves with alcohol. They engage in degrading sex acts without dread of repressive "patriarchal" morality.


Now, I don't have any fancy letters for my name, but this is on its face nonsense. Basically, the article outlines all the crappy, disrespectful ways women are treated in college. And it is ALL the fault of 'feminism' according to this guy. Not a single word that I saw about the 'conquest' mentality of frat boys, not a word about the deliberate use of alcohol and other drugs for nothing other than 'scoring'. And a blanket generalization that apparently nobody in college these days is a true, honorable gentleman.

This kind of twisting of the truth by the anti-feminist crowd is insidious. Sure, in the days when women were more oppressed than they are now, the kind of behavior described in the article did not happen as much. Or as publicly. And one aspect of full freedom is the freedom to make really stupid decisions, as no doubt happens.

But to blame rampant sexism, poor choices, mis-use of alcohol and all the rest soley on feminism is so ludicrous it would be funny were it not so tragic.


People like the guy who wrote this article just see what they want to see.

Fact is, Feminism doesnt do this, over-limit consumption of alcohol does this.



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by WolfofWar
People like the guy who wrote this article just see what they want to see.

Fact is, Feminism doesnt do this, over-limit consumption of alcohol does this.


True. We had women who did this in the 60s. They just weren't quite so plentiful. They would use drunkenness as an excuse to do things they could later claim were "not in their nature."

Now, with young men (and women) having a large percentage of their social interaction with computer characters and exposure to "Girls Gone Wild," as context for their interactions with the opposite sex, the results aren't suprising. But it's still not the majority of students.

There's always a market for the "world is going to hell in a handbasket" stories, and often the writers themselves don't belive the drivel they sell.



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 06:57 AM
link   
Quoted from page 16:


Originally posted by darkelf
Most women wanted the benefits without having to pay their dues. That is the hypocritical nature of feminism.

(snip)

Don’t forget the sexual revolutionist who wanted the freedom to sleep around like men without the stigma attached to that action. The invention of the “pill” was their favorite scientific breakthrough! I never could understand how you’re supposed to respect anyone who dresses and acts like a slut.

Most of these women acted out of selfishness. They wanted special treatment, not equality.


The fact that many women are more “free” sexually has done nothing to the stigma attached to that type of behavior. Women who act like sluts are still labeled as such.

What I find interesting is the same men who lable these girls “sluts” are the one who entice them by using the feminist agenda. If these girls are naïve enough to believe this garbage, they are in for a rude awakening. Double standards in this arena still exist, and rightly so. It has nothing to do with the feminist movement.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by laiguana
Ann Coulter hates women, esp ones with more money than her


She is an example of what I was talking about. She doesn't think women should be 'allowed' to vote.
And I don't know if she's transgendered or not. It would explain a lot about her attitude against women.


BH, I don’t know either. I consider any woman with an adam’s apple suspect.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 10:17 AM
link   
I respectfully disagree,
As Makow points out these are trickle down affects from what their parents and grandparents were sold back in the sixties. Sure feminsim is not fully to blame, but it is certainly a subtle framework which has created a mindset which is radically different from previous generations. Investigate the origins and pioneers of the 'movement' and see the very same players who have created many engineered transitions here in America. It's built on the simple premise of 'kill the family, kill the country'. Deny it's working.........but you know it is.!



new topics
 
3
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join